The response is all about the risk. But was the risk perceived or real - was the threshold for risk greater or lesser than the capacity at the time?
If a booze ban was subsequently 'slapped' on the troops, then it would suggest there wasn't a ban in place. If they got so drunk that what they did would have attracted similar wrath in the UK, then fine - they are both adults and they can have no grumbles. If they were scheduled to fly, then again - fine.. they deserve nothing else and I am sure they would be the first to appreciate that. But lets strip away the feeding frenzy from the facts. In the absence of the facts (and I do not have the facts or the truth - only what the Sun says), if the response is nothing more than an over reacting, media driven backside covering exercise, then its a sad day.